CVE-2015-0192
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedUnspecified vulnerability in IBM Java 8 before SR1, 7 R1 before SR2 FP11, 7 before SR9, 6 R1 before SR8 FP4, 6 before SR16 FP4, and 5.0 before SR16 FP10 allows remote attackers to gain privileges via unknown vectors related to the Java Virtual Machine.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceThis is an unspecified privilege escalation vulnerability in multiple IBM Java versions affecting the Java Virtual Machine. The CVSS 9.8 indicates remote code execution capability with low attack complexity, requiring no authentication or user interaction.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 5.0= 6.0= 7.0= 5.0= 6.0= 7.0= 6.6= 6.6= 7.1= 7.2= 7.3= 7.4= 7.5= 5.0= 6.0= 7.0>= 5.0.0.0, < 5.0.16.10>= 6.0.0.0, <= 6.0.16.4>= 6.1.0.0, < 6.1.8.4>= 7.0.0.0, <= 7.0.9>= 7.1.0.0, < 7.1.2.11>= 8.0, < 8.0.1.0= 10= 11= 12= 12CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify if IBM Java is installedRun 'java -version' or check for IBM Java binaries in common paths like /opt/ibm/java-* or check RPM packages with 'rpm -qa | grep -i ibmjava'Affected if IBM Java is present on the system
-
Determine the exact IBM Java versionRun 'java -version 2>&1' and look for the full version string including the build number (e.g., JRE 5.0 GA, build 2.4)Affected if Version output shows IBM Java rather than Oracle/OpenJDK
-
Compare installed version against affected IBM Java rangesCompare the full version number to these vulnerable ranges: 5.0.0.0 to < 5.0.16.10; 6.0.0.0 to <= 6.0.16.4; 6.1.0.0 to < 6.1.8.4; 7.0.0.0 to <= 7.0.9; 7.1.0.0 to < 7.1.2.11; 8.0.0.0 to < 8.0.1.0Affected if Installed version falls within any of these ranges
-
Check for IBM Java on Red Hat Enterprise LinuxIf running RHEL 5.x, 6.x, or 7.x, query installed packages with 'rpm -qa | grep -i ibm' or 'yum list installed | grep -i java' to find IBM Java packagesAffected if IBM Java packages are installed on any of the listed RHEL versions (5.0, 6.0, 6.6, 7.0, 7.1-7.5)
-
Check for IBM Java on SUSE Linux EnterpriseIf running SLES 10, 11, or 12, query installed packages with 'rpm -qa | grep -i ibmjava' or 'zypper list-installed | grep -i ibm'Affected if IBM Java packages are installed on SLES 10, 11, or 12
The system is affected if IBM Java is installed and its version falls within any of these ranges: 5.0.0.0 to < 5.0.16.10, 6.0.0.0 to <= 6.0.16.4, 6.1.0.0 to < 6.1.8.4, 7.0.0.0 to <= 7.0.9, 7.1.0.0 to < 7.1.2.11, or 8.0.0.0 to < 8.0.1.0.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped5.0.16.106.1.8.47.1.2.11
Update IBM Java installations to the patched versions: Java 8 SR1, 7 R1 SR2 FP11, 7 SR9, 6 R1 SR8 FP4, 6 SR16 FP4, or 5.0 SR16 FP10 or later.
IBM Java 5.0 SR16 FP10+, IBM Java 6.0 SR16 FP4+/6.1.8.4+, IBM Java 7.0 SR9+/7.1 SR2 FP11+, or IBM Java 8 SR1+
- 1. Identify the currently installed IBM Java version by running 'java -version' or checking the RPM package (e.g., 'rpm -qa | grep ibmjava')
- 2. For IBM Java 5.0: upgrade to version 5.0.16.10 or later (SR16 FP10 or higher)
- 3. For IBM Java 6.0/6.1: upgrade to version 6.0.16.4 or later for 6.0.x, or 6.1.8.4 or later for 6.1.x
- 4. For IBM Java 7.0/7.1: upgrade to version 7.0.9 or later for 7.0.x, or 7.1 SR2 FP11 or later for 7.1
- 5. For IBM Java 8: upgrade to version 8 SR1 (8.0.1.0) or later
- 6. On RHEL/CentOS systems, apply updates via 'yum update ibm-java*' or 'rpm -Uvh' with the fixed IBM Java RPM packages
- 7. Verify the new version is active by running 'java -version' and confirm it shows a fixed release number
- 8. Restart any applications using the Java runtime to ensure they use the patched version
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-0192 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2015-0192 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data